I. To the Question

38. Here a distinction is made [Richard of Middleton, Peter of Tarentaise] about a bad minister: either he is in schism from the Church totally or for a time, or he is not in schism but is permitted.

39. But let us see about the members of this distinction in order.

A. About Reception of Baptism from a Minister in Schism from the Church

40. About the first there are two opposite ways of speaking.

1. First Way: about the Obligation to Receive Baptism

41. One way is that one is bound to receive baptism from such a minister if another minister cannot be had, because baptism is a sacrament of necessity.

2. Second Way: about Refusal to Receive Baptism from Such a Minister

42. Another way is that one is bound not to receive from him, and that by receiving one sins mortally.

43. And the clarification of this is that the one needing to be baptized is either an adult or a child.

If an adult, the baptism of desire is sufficient for him when he cannot have the baptism of water; in the matter at hand, he does not have a minister because he is prohibited from communicating with one who is in schism, and especially in sacramental acts; therefore, he will be saved by baptism of desire in not receiving baptism from him, because he is in a situation where he cannot have a minister; and if he were to receive baptism from him he would be communicating with him contrary to the prohibition of the Church in acts that have been prohibited most of all.

44. But if the one to be baptized is a child, he who has the child may baptize him if he cannot get another more suitable who is not in schism [Gratian, Decretum p.2 cause 30 ch.7]; because, as before [n.43], it is not licit for him on behalf of the child to communicate with someone in schism. And if it be posited that he who has the child is infirm and does not have anyone in the region who is not in schism, one should consequently say that in no way must there be communication in such an act with someone in schism, because not even in that case should he offer his child for being baptized to someone in schism.

3. The Second Way is Rejected

45. Against this [nn.42-44]:

The precept of a superior obligates more than the percept of an inferior (from the authority of Augustine, cited before [n.37]). But God commands baptism to be received, the Church forbids communicating with him whom she cuts off; therefore, the precept of God is more to be obeyed in this case than the precept of the Church.

46. Again, someone excommunicated is more bound to avoid others than others are to avoid him, because this precept about avoidance is not imposed on anyone save for his own sake; but someone in schism or excommunicated is not bound in this case to avoid others, indeed he is bound not to avoid them; for if someone thus in schism knew that some non-baptized child was presently going to die, he would necessarily be bound to baptize him, and so bound not to avoid others in a case of baptizing. My proof of this is that if he were to find the child exposed to danger of bodily life because of famine, he would necessarily be bound to feed him to save his bodily life; but he is more bound to love his spiritual life; therefore when a child is exposed to danger of spiritual life, he is bound to confer on him the remedy necessary for spiritual life; therefore much more are others not bound to avoid him as to communicating with him in such act.

47. And hereby appears the answer to the reason for the second way of speaking [n.43], which proceeds from the precept of the Church: for the prohibition is universally understood to be when a greater precept does not oblige to the contrary; but the precept of a law of nature and a Gospel precept is greater than a percept of the Church only. When therefore a precept of the law of nature thus obliges one to save the bodily life of one’s neighbor, and much more to save his spiritual life, and there is a divine precept about conferring and receiving baptism, the precept of the superior is more to be obeyed than is someone to be avoided in these acts because of a precept of the Church shunning him; for no judge or legislator in the Church would understand that her precept needed to be kept in a case where it would go against a precept of the law of nature and of God.

4. An Intermediate Opinion

48. So it is possible, as to this article, to hold an intermediate opinion as concerns an adult, that it is licit for an adult to receive baptism from someone in schism if another minister cannot be had.

49. And this seems to be held by Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists VI ch.5 n.7 (fairly quickly after the beginning): “However someone separated [from the Church] can bestow baptism, just as he can have baptism, but ruinously bestow it; but he to whom he bestows it can receive it in a sound way, if he who receives it is not separated; just as to many it has happened that, with a Catholic mind and heart not alien to the unity of peace, they have, by some necessity of approaching death, come to some heretic and have received the baptism of Christ from him, without his perversity; and, whether deceased or set free, they would never remain with them [sc. heretics] to whom they had never in their heart passed over.”

50. An adult is also able perhaps not to receive [baptism from a heretic], because the baptism of desire would suffice for him if, because of reverence for the Church, he were to avoid such a heretic. However, all things considered, it seems better that he receive from such a person than that he depart from life without baptism.

51. But as to a child, if no one but someone in schism can be had to baptize him, and danger threatens, because it would not be possible to wait to get a suitable minister, he who has the child [n.44] is necessarily bound to offer his child to someone in schism. For it would be too hard to say that he would be bound to permit his child to be perpetually damned although he could have someone to baptize him, and although the child would be saved whoever was the baptizer, even it be a pagan doing the baptizing, according to Gratian, Decretum p.3 [n.36].

B. About Receiving Baptism from a Bad Minister not in Schism from the Church

52. As to the second member of the distinction [n.38], namely about a bad minister not in schism from the Church:

If he is secretly bad, so that his life is not scandalous to the people, it is conceded that someone could receive baptism from such a minister, indeed should do so - provided otherwise he should, because one should not avoid a neighbor in acts that are well known on account of a sin that is not well known.

53. But if the minister is publicly or notoriously bad, as a public fornicator or the like, then either it is incumbent on him by his office to dispense the sacrament of baptism (as that he is a parish priest or curate), or it is not incumbent on him but would fit him by reason of his office, as that he is a priest called to assist a parish curate.

54. If in the first way, he who receives baptism for himself or for his child does not sin, because he who seeks and receives from someone bad what is owed does not sin; and the curate is debtor to his parish in administering the sacraments.

55. If in the second way - if it be possible to get another on whom it is incumbent by his office to baptize, either he gets someone equally bad or someone better. If can get a better, then he sins who receives baptism from the other, on whom it is not incumbent to administer the sacraments to him; also if [the one he gets] is someone equally bad, he ought to receive baptism from his own minister. But if no other curate or priest can be got save someone equally bad as his own minister, but some good layman can be got, it is doubtful who should be preferred to whom in this act, whether a good layman to a publicly bad priest, or a priest thus bad to a good layman. And in brief, because the office of ministering sacraments in the Church does in this way belong to priests, it seems one should say that, as to this act, a bad priest is rather to be chosen.